RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-01484
		
			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, Block 26, Separation Code, “JHF” and Block 28, Narrative 
Reason for Separation, “Failure to Complete a Course of 
Instruction” be corrected to accurately reflect his 
characterization of service.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DD Form 214 lists a separation code of “JHF” and 
corresponding Narrative Reason for Separation as “Failure to 
Complete a Course of Instruction”.  He does not believe this 
separation code, or its corresponding narrative summary, 
accurately reflects the character and nature of his service or 
circumstances surrounding his involuntary separation.

The applicant believes that from the onset of his Air Force 
career, he excelled individually and was a well-liked, valued 
team member.  He was competitively selected as an “Exceptional 
Performer” of the top flight of the school in his first active 
duty professional military education course (Air and Space Basic 
Course).  After completing that training, he reported to his 
first duty station to attend both Space and Missile training.  

He attended and graduated Undergraduate Space Training with an 
overall academic average of 94 percent.  He then attended the 
ICBM REACT-A Course, completing all graded measurements with an 
average of 97.3 percent and receiving the highest rating 
achievable (Highly Qualified) on his practical evaluation in 
both weapon system and emergency war order procedures.  It was 
while attending this course of training that a series of events 
led to his separation.

He received two speeding tickets and informed his leadership 
immediately upon receipt, admitted his mistakes, took full 
responsibility for his actions and accepted the consequences 
without question or equivocation.  Approximately two weeks after 
receiving the second speeding ticket, he was summoned to meet 
with his commander.  Prior to this meeting, he had completed the 
last and one of the hardest academic tests in the course, 
achieving a perfect score and also the highest rating possible 
(Highly Qualified) on his final practical evaluation.  Only 
after he completed these final evaluations and only seven days 
from graduating the course, his commander made the decision to 
permanently decertify him under the Personnel Reliability 
Program (PRP), due to a stated loss of confidence in his ability 
to perform 100% of the nuclear mission.  Since the commander did 
not remove his PRP certification upon receipt of the second 
ticket, he was quite surprised with the abrupt permanent 
decertification after completing all graded training measurement 
with high marks and being so close to graduation.  The fact that 
being certified under PRP is a mandatory requirement to perform 
ICBM duty, he was made ineligible for the job.

While it is true he technically did not graduate from the ICBM 
REACT-A course, the questionable timing of the decision to PRP 
decertify him resulted in him being prevented from graduating.  
With the exception of the two speeding tickets, his performance 
and conduct both on and off duty was above reproach and he 
excelled in all aspects of military training.  The effects of 
his early separation, the “JHF” separation code and 
corresponding narrative reason for separation have resulted in 
his inability to join the Guard, Reserve or another branch of 
service.  Additionally, his Department of Veterans Affairs 
benefits have been negatively impacted.  

In support of his request, the applicant provided over 193 pages 
of documentation to highlight his outstanding performance. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Mar 
09.

On 14 Jun 10, the applicant’s commander permanently decertified 
him from PRP based on a personal interview, as he had lost 
confidence that the applicant could perform 100% of the nuclear 
mission.  

On 15 Jun 10, the applicant acknowledged his PRP status and 
chose not to submit any additional information for 
consideration.  On the same date, the reviewing official 
concurred with the permanent decertification. 

On 30 Nov 10, the applicant was furnished an Honorable 
discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 8 days of 
active service.   

The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects he was separated with a 
Separation Code of “JHF” and a Narrative Reason for Separation 
of “Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction”.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C 
and D.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  A review of the documentation shows 
that the applicant was considered for and not selected for 
retention or reclassification.  As a result, in accordance with 
AFI 36-3207, Separating Commissioned Officers, Chapter 3, 
paragraph 3.13, the applicant must be separated.  Therefore, the 
applicant’s discharge was correct and in accordance with DoD and 
Air Force instructions. The applicant’s service 
characterization, narrative reason for separation and SPD code 
are correct as reflected on his DD Form 214.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  The applicant alleges that the reason 
for his disqualification from PRP and resulting elimination from 
training was his having committed two minor on base speeding 
violations, which he argues do not constitute the type of 
serious offense that would support PRP decertification according 
to governing DoD regulations, DoD 5210.42-R.  In fact, the basis 
for his permanent disqualification from PRP was a loss of 
confidence by the commander that the applicant could perform 
100% of the nuclear mission based on her personal interview.  
This is a perfectly valid reason for permanent disqualification, 
in accordance with paragraph C5.1.9 of DoD 5210.42-R.  While the 
traffic violation may have had some impact on the commander’s 
decision, they were clearly not the basis for the 
disqualification.  

While not articulated as such, the applicant also argues that 
his disqualification from PRP and elimination from missile 
officer training was essentially an injustice, given his 
otherwise stellar performance in the academic and other portions 
of the training course.  The courts have for years now held that 
an “injustice” within the meaning of 10 USC 1552 means more than 
an action that seems unfair to the applicant, or that might 
cause collateral consequences.  It has been defined as an 
action(s) or treatment by military authorities that “shock the 
conscience or sense of justice.”  Sawyer v United States, 18 C1. 
Ct 860(1989).  The narrative reason and code designator for 
applicant’s separation from the Air Force, as written on this DD 
Form 214, were accurate and properly reflected the reason for 
his discharge.  That discharge was based on completely legal and 
appropriate discretionary decisions made by the responsible Air 
Force authorities, from the training commander, to the IST Board 
to the ultimate discharge authority.  The applicant’s 
elimination from initial skills training, and his failure to be 
reclassified based on his skill set and the needs of the Air 
Force, fully complied with all governing directives, and the 
result was the same as experienced by many other officers 
similarly situated in this force drawdown era.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 3 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  The applicant is 
requesting his separation code and corresponding narrative 
reason be changed to accurately reflect his service and to 
provide him an opportunity to join the Guard, Reserve or another 
branch of service.  In this regard, the applicant states the 
timing of the decision to PRP decertify him is questionable and 
was done so after completing all graded training measurement 
with high marks and days from graduating the course.  The 
decision to abruptly decertify him after a couple of weeks from 
his second speeding ticket prevented him from graduating from 
the course.  After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, 
and taking into consideration the comments of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility, we believe the commander’s 
abrupt permanent decertification after the applicant had 
completed all academic requirements with high marks and being so 
close to graduation, we find the commander’s action rose to the 
level of an injustice which shocks the conscience.   Although no 
error occurred in the applicant’s discharge as it was done in 
accordance with established Air Force policy and procedures, we 
believe that based on the totality of the evidence presented the 
applicant has suffered an injustice. Our favorable consideration 
of this request does not condone the applicant’s traffic 
violations, however, for the reasons described above, we believe 
that it would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to 
suffer the adverse effects of his narrative reason and 
corresponding SPD code and therefore recommend his records be 
corrected as indicated below.  


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty 
issued on 30 November 2010, be corrected to reflect a separation 
code of “JFF” and a narrative reason for separation as 
“Secretarial Authority”.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01484 in Executive Session on 10 Mar 2015 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01484 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 28 May 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 14.